Perhaps the modern disillusion with religion and spirituality is an expression of the narcissist protecting his human rights to indulgence and isolation.

I've noticed the recent 'dark' trend as well. But do you really prefer the squeaky clean heroes of the 1950s? Even the pagan Gods you mentioned were often ignoble and prone to having children out of wedlock and whatnot. Besides, isn't this site all about the dark side of reality? It confounds me when people on this forum spin lofty words about purity and virtue when there's the Altar of the Goat or whatever.

I myself struggle with the darkness question: is it ok for one to have a dark side, or is it just an excuse to be a manchild? I think that unless a great tragedy has befallen you in your lifetime, ie the death of a loved one, you really don't have any reason to be dark, and to do so you'd only be wearing a mask.

"The darkness question" has been around from the earliest days of man. It has always been granted its place in mind of man. eg. even in the Bhagavad Gita/Mahabharata. There is little that is "pure" in the sense that people here are speaking of. Asuras (demons) gain boons through the virtue of their meditations and the purest are touched with the grime of the darkness of the soul. There have always been men who wished for a world of complete innocence and from them are born the tales of times long past when the world was such, but even if we take it that the distant past was a better time for these things, the curve always only tends towards zero, it never reaches it. 50s comic book mentality IS pure fantasy.

edit: from the Mahabharata to Nunslaughter : Those who are afraid of the dark shall never see the light.

"The darkness question" has been around from the earliest days of man. It has always been granted its place in mind of man. eg. even in the Bhagavad Gita/Mahabharata. There is little that is "pure" in the sense that people here are speaking of. Asuras (demons) gain boons through the virtue of their meditations and the purest are touched with the grime of the darkness of the soul. There have always been men who wished for a world of complete innocence and from them are born the tales of times long past when the world was such, but even if we take it that the distant past was a better time for these things, the curve always only tends towards zero, it never reaches it. 50s comic book mentality IS pure fantasy.

edit: from the Mahabharata to Nunslaughter : Those who are afraid of the dark shall never see the light.

You're completely correct, don't misunderstand, darkness needs to be granted it's proper place. I know that being obsessed with sanctity is very dangerous. But there's something mixed up going on today. I think it is precisely because we have not accorded darkness its proper place that some have grown resentful of sanctity. Sanctity is to be valued as well, not secretly laughed at as some do. Also when you do strive to live a pious life, it makes those sweet moments of "sin" all the more thrilling! If "sin" and "darkness" were to become utterly commonplace then the heretics would be the holy. I've said before that metal, especially black metal, has a puritanical streak running through it. I fully believe this. Think about how stale it gets when metal is a race to the bottom of degradation and "blasphemy." Or think of an asshole like GG Allin. Smearing feces on your body and gargling goat semen isn't art, it's a mental problem. Only Paul Ledney is allowed to do that!

It's also interesting to think about how we relate to our culture and how it relates to us. The basic question, in my mind, is: do we create our culture or does our culture create us? The way I see it, it is both, it's a constant back and forth, it's us sending messages to ourselves. It's both us expressing ourselves and us influencing ourselves. Because some people will say culture is merely an expression of the times and violence on TV (for instance) isn't to blame - TV is just this "thing," there's nothing you can do about it, sign of the times man. On the other hand you have people obsessed with censorship, and they think culture creates us and we can't think for ourselves - so get rid of all bad images. Both of these extreme views miss the mark because they both render us helpless. In this sense, I see a constant human struggle which is to acknowledge the world for the way that it is, but also to struggle to make it what we want it to be. I think this is why fantasy is important and why values like innocence and purity are important. Reality doesn't change, but social reality does.

The other practical consideration with regard to comic books is simply that kids read these things. When standards in the adult world change they also slowly change in the world of children, it trickles down silently. When adults become lax, their kids become lax. Kids need to be brought up to speed on how reality works the proper way. Of course it's going to be a case by case basis and the ultimate responsibility of parents, but young kids just aren't meant to see and understand some things until the time is right.

I think what you're saying comes to this: no balance. I agree. When the balance tips over too far on any side, while the majority will not realise anything and simply "go with it", there will be those who wish to restore it. Translated to our current world scenario (I can't remember any time before the last couple of hundred years, and esp. the last few decades, when lawbreakers and dipshits, however talented or not, were cool - unless they were striving for a true cause) - there has been so much cool-factor shovelled by advertisers and marketers and rock stars into aspects of breaking the (usually unwritten) law or my favourite: be and express yourself (little 0 watt humans with little 0 watt expression), that it has become, as you said, stale and commonplace and ideas like honour are considered antiquated or even silly. The basis of everyday life is selling your soul. So, the balance needs to be righted is what it all comes to. I can understand the yearning for a more sincere time, I feel it.

Well, people push and pull, things come and go - when the balance is completely lost: game over, restart?

@ Spectrum: I think you could make your points without using words like "stupid" and dismissive lines like "whatever works for you, man." By all means, debate, but I cringe when I come here and read silly things like that. It's an etiquette thing.

I can agree with not using the word stupid, but I don't understand what else you would have liked him to say in response to crow.

"Well your point of view sure is interesting but, I don't fully agree with you. I do so hope you continue on down your path to enlightenment though old chap. Cheerio."

"Well your point of view sure is interesting but, I don't fully agree with you. I do so hope you continue on down your path to enlightenment though old chap. Cheerio."

That would have actually been a very humorous response.

I don't want to be the etiquette police and lord over people, so I hesitate to even make posts like this and the other one but every now and then we need a reminder. At that point in the discussion I would have said nothing. A post that only consists of "whatever works for you" goes without saying because of course it's what works for you, it's redundant. It smelled dismissive, trying to get a last word in. I like Spectrum a lot and I know he's capable of a higher form of discourse than this.

It's all just fine. Lots of people call me 'stupid' on forums. When they're not doing that, they're being dismissive. They are wrong, and they are rude, but at least they are being honest. If nobody ever called me unpleasant things, I would fall apart the first time somebody did. So I don't mind. Any crow gets used to such things, and squawks even louder, afterwards. But thank you for being 'concerned', if, indeed, you were.

Nietzsche, the ultimate critic of Christianity understood religion and its value:

Quote

61. The philosopher, as WE free spirits understand him—as the man of the greatest responsibility, who has the conscience for the general development of mankind,—will use religion for his disciplining and educating work, just as he will use the contemporary political and economic conditions. The selecting and disciplining influence—destructive, as well as creative and fashioning—which can be exercised by means of religion is manifold and varied, according to the sort of people placed under its spell and protection. For those who are strong and independent, destined and trained to command, in whom the judgment and skill of a ruling race is incorporated, religion is an additional means for overcoming resistance in the exercise of authority—as a bond which binds rulers and subjects in common, betraying and surrendering to the former the conscience of the latter, their inmost heart, which would fain escape obedience. And in the case of the unique natures of noble origin, if by virtue of superior spirituality they should incline to a more retired and contemplative life, reserving to themselves only the more refined forms of government (over chosen disciples or members of an order), religion itself may be used as a means for obtaining peace from the noise and trouble of managing GROSSER affairs, and for securing immunity from the UNAVOIDABLE filth of all political agitation. The Brahmins, for instance, understood this fact. With the help of a religious organization, they secured to themselves the power of nominating kings for the people, while their sentiments prompted them to keep apart and outside, as men with a higher and super-regal mission. At the same time religion gives inducement and opportunity to some of the subjects to qualify themselves for future ruling and commanding the slowly ascending ranks and classes, in which, through fortunate marriage customs, volitional power and delight in self-control are on the increase. To them religion offers sufficient incentives and temptations to aspire to higher intellectuality, and to experience the sentiments of authoritative self-control, of silence, and of solitude. Asceticism and Puritanism are almost indispensable means of educating and ennobling a race which seeks to rise above its hereditary baseness and work itself upwards to future supremacy. And finally, to ordinary men, to the majority of the people, who exist for service and general utility, and are only so far entitled to exist, religion gives invaluable contentedness with their lot and condition, peace of heart, ennoblement of obedience, additional social happiness and sympathy, with something of transfiguration and embellishment, something of justification of all the commonplaceness, all the meanness, all the semi-animal poverty of their souls. Religion, together with the religious significance of life, sheds sunshine over such perpetually harassed men, and makes even their own aspect endurable to them, it operates upon them as the Epicurean philosophy usually operates upon sufferers of a higher order, in a refreshing and refining manner, almost TURNING suffering TO ACCOUNT, and in the end even hallowing and vindicating it. There is perhaps nothing so admirable in Christianity and Buddhism as their art of teaching even the lowest to elevate themselves by piety to a seemingly higher order of things, and thereby to retain their satisfaction with the actual world in which they find it difficult enough to live—this very difficulty being necessary.-Beyond Good and Evil

The revolt against religion is the continuation of the slave revolt. It is the latest revolution against authority. Religion is so obviously necessary for a functioning society. Popular Christianity just happens to be a terrible form. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

"The revolt against religion is the continuation of the slave revolt." Revolt against religion is usefull when it's becoming enthralled with useless rituals, corrupt principles, leaders. Having hierarchy is essencial but the priest cannot just live in a golden palace and spit on the slaves all the time. When they do so, they lack the humility that is required of them. Yes they are greater than slaves but in comparason to the gods, they are but a spec of dust. it,s the old saying "the more I know, the more I realise that I don't know.

The true masters are always just. They don't punish their subordinate for nothing. But they can punish hard when it's necessary. And they can free the slaves if they deserve it.

In cases of corrupt leaders, the slaves are right to remove the top half. But if the slaves just want to become the masters without deserving it, this is when that revolt is bad.

The movie Metropolis is a good exemple of that. The lower and the upper don't work in harmony. It take an "act of god" (a flood) to get them working together.